Case Digest (G.R. No. 170365)
Facts:
Abdul Gaffar P.M. Dibaratun v. Commission on Elections and Abdul Carim Mala Abubakar, G.R. No. 170365, February 02, 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Abdul Gaffar P.M. Dibaratun sought review of the COMELEC en banc Resolution dated October 17, 2005 (SPA No. 02-481) that declared a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A, Barangay Bagoainguid, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur, and annulled petitioner’s proclamation as Punong Barangay arising from the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections.Respondent Abdulcarim Mala Abubakar, a re-electionist candidate for Punong Barangay, filed a verified petition with the COMELEC seeking (1) declaration of failure of elections in the cited precinct and (2) annulment of petitioner’s proclamation. Abubakar alleged that voting commenced at about 10:30 a.m. but, after only ten (10) voters had cast ballots out of 151 registered voters, a person identified as Alipecry Acop Gaffar (described as petitioner’s son) was caught with three filled ballots and a commotion ensued, during which the ballot box was reportedly destroyed and substituted ballots were placed, resulting in suspension of voting and preventing many registered voters from casting their votes.
The Board of Election Inspectors and petitioner denied Abubakar’s allegations, contending that because ten voters had voted there was no failure and also asserting that Abubakar’s petition was filed out of time. The Election Officer recommended a special election. After due notice and hearing, the COMELEC en banc granted Abubakar’s petition on October 17, 2005, finding the voting was suspended before the hour fixed for closing because of violence and that the uncast votes could have affected the result; it annulled Dibaratun’s proclamation and ordered him to cease exercising the powers of office pending special elections and directed implementation consistent with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9164.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, arguing (inter alia) that the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A and annulling petitioner’s proclamation?
- Was respondent Abubakar’s petition untimely or improperly cognizable as a pre‑proclamation controversy such that the COMELEC erred in entertaining it?
- Are petitioner’s defenses of estoppel for failure to object during the polls and failure to pay docket fees timely and suffic...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)